The Fourth Century Black-Glaze Ware from the Northern Periurban Sanctuary of Cumae.

Quaderni del Centro Studi Magna Grecia19

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI NAPOLI FEDERICO IIDIPARTIMENTO DI STUDI UMANISTICI

CENTRO INTERDIPARTIMENTALE DI STUDI PER LA MAGNA GRECIA

Archaeometry. Comparing Experiences

edited by Giovanna Greco and Luigi Cicala

Naus Editoria2014

Quaderni del Centro Studi Magna Grecia, collana a cura di Giovanna Greco.Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi per la Magna Grecia, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici,Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II

Comitato scientificoLuisa Breglia, Carlo Gasparri, Giovanna Greco, Fabrizio Lo Monaco, Francesca Longo Auricchio

Redazione scientificaLuigi Cicala, Bianca Ferrara, Luigi Vecchio

I volumi della collana sono sottoposti al Consiglio Scientifico del Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi perla Magna Grecia e al processo di peer review, affidato a specialisti anonimi, la cui documentazione è dis-ponibile presso l’Editore.

Progetto grafico e realizzazione Naus Editoria

Stampa Grafica Elettronica, Napoli

Copyright © Pozzuoli 2014. Naus Editoria, www.naus.it

1. Archaeology 2. Archaeometry 3. Pottery production 4. Fabrics

ISBN 978-88-7478-035-8

È severamente vietata la riproduzione parziale o totale del testo e delle immagini.

Il volume è stato stampato con un contributo del Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici dell’Università degliStudi di Napoli Federico II. Hanno collaborato alle attività redazionali di questo volume MarialuciaGiacco e Maria Luisa Tardugno.

5

G. GRECO, V. MORRA

The Beginning of Research

V. GASSNER, M. TRAPICHLER, with a contribution from K. SCHALLER†

A Web-based Information System of Pottery Fabrics in the Central

Mediterranean (FACEM)

V. MORRA, A. DE BONIS, C. GRIFA

Geological Outlines of Studied Archaeological Sites

G. GRECO, A. TOMEO, B. FERRARA, V. GUARINO, A. DE BONIS, V. MORRA

Cumae, the Forum: Typological and Archaeometric Analysis of some Pottery

Classes from Sondages inside the Temple with Portico

P. MUNZI, V. GUARINO, A. DE BONIS, V. MORRA, C. GRIFA, A. LANGELLA

Fourth Century Black-glaze Ware from the Northern Periurban Sanctuary of

Cumae

D. GIAMPAOLA, S. FEBBRARO, A. DE BONIS, V. GUARINO, V. MORRA, C. GRIFA,

A. LANGELLA

The Pottery Workshop Area at Piazza Nicola Amore, Naples. Black-glaze and

Common Ware Production: Archaeology and Archaeometry

V. GASSNER, E. SCOPPETTA

Western Greek Amphorae from the Excavations at Piazza Nicola Amore,

Naples

A. SERRITELLA, P. MONDA

Fratte: the Research Project

G. GRECO, G. PATERNOSTER, M. FRANCO, M. GIACCO, G. TROJSI

Archaeometric Analysis of Ceramic and Bronze Artifacts from the Sanctuary

of Hera at the Mouth of Sele River: New Results

B. FERRARRA, V. GUARINO, A. DE BONIS, V. MORRA, C. GRIFA, A. LANGELLA

The Sanctuary of Hera at the Mouth of the Sele River: Archaeometric Analyses

for the Reconstruction of Black-glaze Ware Production at Paestum

V. GASSNER, M. TRAPICHLER, R. SAUER

Pottery Production at Velia: Archaeometric Analyses and the Typological

Development of Glazed Ware, Coarse Wares and Transport Amphorae

L. CICALA, C. GRIFA, L. FRANCIOSI, A. LANGELLA, C. GERMINARIO, M. MERCURIO,

V. MORRA

Ceramic Productions from Pian della Tirena, Nocera Terinese (Cz)

7-15

17-28

29-36

37-68

69-87

89-109

111-125

127-136

137-164

165-189

191-269

271-292

Contents

P. FRAGNOLI, C. CAPRIGLIONE, R. JUNG, M. PACCIARELLI

Before Sampling: Systematic Procedures of Macroscopic Pottery

Classification within the Punta Zambrone (VV) Research Project

Plates

6

293-310

* Centre Jean Bérard (USR 3133 CNRS-EfR).

** Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, dell’Ambiente e delle Risorse, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II.

*** Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie, Università degli Studi del Sannio, Benevento.

1 On the Northern periurban sanctuary of Cumae: BATS et alii 2010; DEWAILLy-MUNzI 2011; BRUN et alii

forthcoming.

Since 2001, the investigations of the Centre Jean Bérard (USR3133, CNRS - EfR)

have concentrated on the outer urban perimeter of Cumae, within the area bounded to the

N by the Southern shore of the ancient lake of Licola and to the S by the Northern walls

of the lower town.

The investigations carried out in the field in front of the Median Gate, under the

“Kyme 3” project, brought to light a complex of structures apparently belonging to a

sacred area with different building phases, dated between the 6th and the 1st century BC

(figs. 1-3).

The complex lies immediately E of the N/S road in front of the gate, approximately

50 m N of the town walls. All its structural elements lie on N/E-S/W orientation and are

part of a wider and more ramified system.1

We have undertaken an analytic study of the materials found in the destruction

levels of the 5th to 4th century BC building in correlation with the different pottery classes

documented in the sanctuary, which indicate a rather narrow time span coinciding with the

second half of the 4th century BC. Here we will focus on the black-glaze ware.

1. The building complex

During the second half of the 6th century BC, the area in front of the gate was

monumentalized by erecting one or more buildings. The complex of structures, whose

ground plan is unfortunately only partially recognizable, is linked to a series of

groundwater collection wells. Our analytical study of the ceramic material found here

dates the last phase of use of the building within the first quarter of the 5th century BC.

Around the mid-5th century BC, the area shows signs of major renovation. New

structures were built by reusing, in their foundations, part of the partition walls of the

previous building phase. The building erected during this phase consists of a succession

of at least three or perhaps four rectangular rooms, oriented E/W, and a large open space

to the S. In the middle of one of the rooms of the new complex a low rectangular structure

has been identified, consisting of a single block of tuff with significant traces of

combustion. A thick layer of ash was deposited on it, and an ogival amphora with a flat

bottom was half buried in the ground next to it. This hearth stood on a compact flooring

Priscilla Munzi*, Vincenza

Guarino**, Alberto De

Bonis**, Vincenzo Morra**,

Celestino Grifa***, Alessio

Langella*** Fourth Century Black-glaze Ware

from the Northern Periurban

Sanctuary of Cumae

69

surface of tuff flakes. Several elements suggest that this room was used as a hestiatorion,

and it seems plausible that the other rooms might have been used similarly, although the

state of preservation of the structures makes it impossible to determine this with any

certainty.

During the last decades of the 4th century BC the building was transformed. Some

partition walls were dismantled and, at least in the N/W sector, replaced by a dump

consisting of a thick layer of earth, stones, pottery fragments, and animal bones (US70

700138 and 700172). When the complex was transformed, a large pit, almost circular in

shape (FS700114), in the S/W corner of the area with the fireplace, filled the spoliation

cavity of part of the S and W walls and intact pots and architectural terracottas were

deposited in it.

During the first half of the 3rd century BC a new building of limestone framework

masonry was erected. This building ceased to exist during the first half of the 1st century

BC and its vestiges were at least partly removed. Its abandonment was apparently

celebrated with a new closing ceremony, which in this case is also archaeologically

documented by some votive pits.

From the mid-1st century BC, the area was converted to a whole new purpose: it

became a burial ground and was progressively occupied by funerary monuments.

2. The pottery

The destruction levels of the 5th to 4th century BC building yielded a significant

amount of finds: roughly 27,500 sherds of approximately 6,000 individual artifacts.

The coarse ware (approximately 87% of diagnostic and 94% of total sherds) is

1. Aerial photo of

Cumae from the

W.

2. Aerial view of

the Northern

suburban

sanctuary of

Cumae.

3. Northern

suburban

sanctuary of

Cumae.

Hellenistic

building.

71

4. Exemplification

of the black-glaze

forms from the

Northern

suburban

sanctuary of

Cumae.

largely constituted by cooking ware, largely ollae, with far less frequent examples of

lopades and caccabai, as well as some pans, many lids, and several sherds probably

belonging to cooking bells. The coarse ware consists of ollae and amphorae, along with

some fragments of mortars and lekanai for food preparation.

The context also yielded several black-glaze ware vessels (approximately 7% of

diagnostic and 4% of total fragments), miniaturistic vessels (5% of diagnostic fragments)

and some red-figured vases (less than 1% of diagnostic fragments).

The examples of black-glaze ware we examined mainly consist of drinking vases,

closed forms being completely absent.2 They date from the second half of the 4th century

BC, the more recent terminus ante quem being provided by certain types, viz., series 4373

skyphoi, species 4240 kylikes with impressed decoration, species 6210 and 6230 one-

handler cups, series 2586 cups and species 2780 cups with impressed decoration, series

2424, 2433, and 2435-2437 small concave-convex cups, and series 2971 small cups, all

shapes with extensive parallels among materials from Cumae3 and other Campanian sites.

The most frequent types are skyphoi (approximately 38.5% of the total). This shape

is mainly documented in series 4373. It is characterised by a slightly everted rounded rim,

a sinuous profile leaning towards the concave-convex, horizontal handles, and a distinct

ring foot (fig. 4, nos. 228 and 236). The examples from Cumae often show a reddish

coating on the outer bottom, similar to that of miltos Attic vases. The series has been

defined by Morel as typical of the Apulian area.4 However, research over the past few

decades has shown that such skyphoi are also widespread in Campania, Samnium,

Southern Italy, and Sicily, especially from the last quarter of the 4th century BC to the

following century.5 Within the context under study at Cumae there are also examples of

series 4311, characterised by a thin rim, an ovoid profile sagging at the base, and a disc

foot, as well as examples of series 4382, with a simple rim, sometimes thinned, a bowl

with an almost frustoconical profile, and a large ring foot. The skyphoi belonging to these

last two series are widely documented in Southern Italy and Sicily and date from the 5th

century BC. While Attic-type skyphoi do not seem to extend much beyond the third

quarter of the 4th century BC, series 4311 is well documented in the second half of the 4th

and first quarter of the 3rd century BC.6

There are also several one-handler cups of species 6210 and 6230 (approximately

14% of the total), well known in Southern Italy, especially in Lucania and Apulia.7 The

type represented by the largest number of examples is species 6230, characterised by a

short plain lip with a rounded rim, a hemispheric bowl, a handle, circular in section, set

below the rim, and a ring foot (fig. 4, no. 231). One of the examples from the sanctuary

has a lug under the lip and an impressed decoration, only partially preserved, within at

least three rows of rouletting. The type is well documented in series 6231 and 6232 from

the old excavations in Capua.8

Species 6210 occurs in approximately the same percentage. It is characterised by a

rounded rim, a convex profile, a handle, circular in section, set close to the rim, and a ring

foot. The type is widespread in southern Italy, especially in Apulia and Campania, during

the 4th century BC. The species was already known to be present in Cumae from an

unpublished example from the necropolis.9 The type is also attested at Capua, in the San

2 We used J.-P. Morel’s typological classification of black-glaze ware (MOREL 1981) .3 GABRICI 1913, 707-708, tav. CV, 1 and 3; TOMEO 2008, 49-74.4 MOREL 1981, 311, pl. 131.5 Most recently, SERRITELLA 2013, 134 and note 31, with extensive bibliography on the Campanian and Lucanian

area.6 SERRITELLA 2013, 132-134 and notes 27 (series 4311) and 28 (series 4382) on the spread of the series in

Campania. 7 MOREL 1981, 394, pl. 194. On its spread in the Lucanian milieu, see SERRITELLA 2013, 137 and note 37.8 MOREL 1981, 395, pls. 194-195; MINGAzzINI 1958, tav. 20, 3 and 7.9 This specimen is discussed in BENASSAI 2004, 186 («grave goods in tomb 243»).

72

Prisco necropolis.10

There are also many small cups, especially of the concave-convex type (almost 12%

of the diagnostics), documented in several series of species 2420 (series 2421, 2423, and

2424) and 2430 (series 2433, 2434, and 2435-2437). These small cups are characterised

by a concave-convex profile with a fillet, a carination or an offset at the base, a moderately

high foot, and a large diameter, with vertical or convex bowl.

Series 2433 (fig. 4, no. 226) and 2435-2437 (fig. 4, nos. 204, 216) are documented

by a greater number of types. One is characterised by a low bowl with a convex profile, a

fillet between the bowl and foot, and a low and large foot with a concave profile. The

examples from Cumae often have a base covered by a thin reddish slip. According to

Morel, this series is derived from Attic products and produced in Apulia and Campania.11

The two examples used to illustrate the series come, respectively, from Ischia (Lacco

Ameno) and Pompeii. The latter carries an impressed decoration, and is of a type whose

production Morel situates in Capua.12 This series, already known from the excavations of

Stevens in Cumae,13 is widespread in southern Italy (especially in Puglia).14 In Campania

it is also documented in Fratte, Pontecagnano - where it was produced beginning in the

late 5th century BC - Paestum and, obviously Capua, where it was found both in the old

excavations and in the necropolis of San Prisco.15

The classification of series 2435-2437 small cups is more complex because their

fragmentary state does not allow precise typological definition. These series share some

common features: a convex profile, a carination between the bowl and the foot, and a

usually large foot with a concave profile. Unfortunately, it is only foot height that

distinguishes the different types. These small cups do not seem widespread. They mostly

occur in Campania, notably in Naples and its hinterland (Ponticelli, Qualiano), Cales,

Capua, Teano and the Alifan area, as well as Fratte and Pontecagnano.16 Specimens from

the second half of the 4th century BC have been discovered in both Capua and

Pontecagnano, particularly those dating from the third quarter of the century. It should be

noted that examples from Capua and Teano, for which a local production is assumed, often

show an impressed decoration.17

Within the black-glaze morphological repertoire documented by the destruction

levels of the periurban sanctuary of Cuma, kylikes and cups turned out to be particularly

significant, both for their peculiar technical and decorative characteristics and for their

range of distribution.

The typological classification of kylikes, 11.5% of the total, is problematic. The

morphological characteristics and proportions of the examples we examined suggest that

they belong to species 4240, and more specifically to series 4241. This series is

characterised by a vertical or slightly inward bent rim, a shallow hemispherical bowl, a

slightly molded foot ring, handles bent slightly inwards, and a rim that protrudes only

slightly or not at all (figs. 4 and 5, no. 213). Morel, using an example from Capua to

10 MOREL 1981, 393, pl. 194. On the spread of the species in Campania and especially in Capua: BENASSAI 2004,

184-186.11 MOREL 1981, 170 and note 166.12 Morel 1981, note 167 for an identical specimen from the Marica sanctuary at the mouth of Garigliano River;

MOREL 1965, 82-83, SHAPEE 109, fig. 1.1 and 3.1 (decoration), “protocampanienne” (second half of the 4th

century BC?).13 DE FILIPPIS 1996, 237, T. 36, n. 16.10 (last quarter of the 4th century BC); 240, T. 185, nn. 16.39-40 (late 4th -

early 3rd century BC). 14 On the spread of the series in Southern Italy: SERRITELLA 1995, 92 and note 32 with extensive bibliography.15 BENASSAI 2004, 186, fig. 144 and note 265.16 MOREL 1981, 171, pl. 50. On the spread of these series in Campania: BENASSAI 2004, 186-188, fig. 144 and

SERRITELLA 2013, 142, both with further references. On the Alifan territory: LISTA 1990, 82, nn. 292-293 (Loc.

Dragoni), tav. II.17 On the black-glaze ware production from Teano see the recent essay by Ilaria Manzini (MANzINI 2013).

74

illustrate the type, attributes it to Southern Italian productions, probably inspired by Greek

prototypes.18 Not many parallels for series 4241 have been found in Campania or, more

generally, in Southern Italy. In contemporary Campanian contexts, the kylix shape is

primarily documented in series 4253, 4222, 4242 and 4284.19 The latest publication of

finds from the Stevens excavation also documents its presence in Cumae.20

A large number of sherds of Cumaean kylikes are characterised by a slightly molded

ring foot with an external base with a thin red slip, decorated with impressed patterns

inside the bowl (fig. 5, nos. 242, 243 and 250). These features can probably be attributed

to species 4240, although they are also found in series 4253. The impressed decoration on

the inside bottom is the base is generally formed of palmettes around small arches with

central rosettes (a differentiated type) or multi-pointed stars, palmettes around small

arches around a head/gorgoneion, or radial palmettes. In his 1965 article on the black-

glaze ware from Pompeii, Morel associated these motifs with the shapes he defined,

following Lamboglia, as Proto-Campanian pottery.21 Some Cumaean examples found

parallels in the Campanian area as documented by the old excavations in Capua.22 The

decorative scheme of a kylix bottom - a small face/mask (possibly a gorgoneion) within

two rings of leaflets amidst five palmettes around small arches (fig. 5, no. 250) - has a

parallel in a vase in the Museo Campano of Capua23 and, only for the small face/mask

motive, with a “bowl” from Cumae.24 The decoration of another example, with the bottom

decorated by an eight-pointed star surrounded by six palmettes around small arches (fig.

5, no. 243), is very similar to that of another vase from Capua.25

Kylikes and cups with similar decorations are documented among grave-goods of

the second half of the 4th century BC from the Cumaean necropolis.26 Among the materials

published by Gabrici in 1913, two kylix bottoms are of considerable interest. Both bear

the Greek signature of their manufacturer.27 The examples are described as follows: - «N.

1. Kylix campana (diam. cm 12), che ha sul fondo cinque palmette impresse in giro ad una

mascheretta (Gorgoneion?), sotto alla quale si legge il nome del fabbricante

TIMOXENOs. - N.9. Simile kylix (diam. cm 12); del nome si legge TIMOXEN». The Greek

letters and the head/gorgoneion are part of the same stamp.

Cups are among the most frequent shapes, representing just over 11% of total. There

are few types, essentially of series 2586 and species 2780, most notably series 2784, the

most difficult to classify.

Cup series 2586 is documented by several examples (figs. 4-5, no. 211),

characterised by a shallow, regularly curved bowl, an inwards slanting rim, and a high ring

foot. In this type, the outer bowl is characterised by an offset at approximately the middle

of the cup. These cups generally carry an impressed decoration on the inside of the bottom.

The Cumaean example chosen to illustrate this type has a decoration on the bottom within

75

18 MOREL 1981, 296-297, pl. 121.19 It is hard to typologically and more accurately assess the kylikes found in Campanian contexts without a graphic

documentation. On the occurrence of kylikes in contemporary Campanian contexts see: BENASSAI 2004, 192-194

(Capua); DE FILIPPIS et alii 2013 (Sessa Aurunca); LISTA 1990 (Alifan territory); MINGAzzINI 1930 (Vitulazio);

GIGLIOLI 1922 (Ponticelli); GIAMPAOLA 1985 a (Ponticelli); MINIERO et alii 1997 (Castellamare di Stabia).20 DE FILIPPIS 1996; C. Rescigno and L. Petacco, in zEVI et alii 2008, 275-289.21 MOREL 1965, 82-84, fig. 3. For a precise definition of “Protocampanian” and various general observations on this

ware: LAMBOGLIA 1952 a, 74-75; LAMBOGLIA 1952 b, 165; LAMBOGLIA 1960, 293.22 MINGAzzINI 1958, 36, tav. 16, nn. 1-3 (shapes) and above all tav. 25 on decorations.23 MINGAzzINI 1958, 20, 36, tav. 25, n. 2. Mingazzini attributes the decoration to a double-handled cup of the type

represented on tav. 16. 1 (20, tav. 16, fig. 1b).24 GABRICI 1913, 702-703, tav. CVII, n. 2.25 MINGAzzINI 1958, 20, 36, tav. 25, n. 3. The decoration reproduction is attributed by Mingazzini to a double-

handled cup of the type represented on tav. 16. 1 (20, tav. 16, fig. 1d).26 GABRICI 1913, 702-703, tav. CVII.27 GABRICI 1913, 703, tav. CVII, nn. 1 and 8.

5. Northern

suburban

sanctuary of

Cumae. Some

cups and kylikes.

five rows of rouletting, surrounding six radial palmettes linked by seven elliptical festoons

with corymbs, perhaps with a rosette in the middle. Morel defined this series as probably

Capuan or at least from Northern or North-central Campania, using at least two cups,

probably from Naples,28 to illustrate it. The spread of this type of cup actually seems to be

restricted to North-central Campania towns, where it is documented by several examples29

besides the Cumaean ones, notably from recent excavations of Line 1 of the Metro,

Duomo station, in Piazza Nicola Amore in Naples;30 a tomb in the Ponte S. Prisco

necropolis in Capua;31 the Loreto sanctuary, in Teano;32 and the Piscinola necropolis in the

territory of Sessa Aurunca.33 Another similar example with an almost identical decoration

comes from S. Polo (Campone) in Sannio,34 and there is an unprovenanced sample in

Copenhagen.35

A second set of cups is attributable, instead, to species 2780 and probably also to

series 2784.36 They are cups with a convex hemispherical bowl, a high and slanted ring

foot, and an inward curved and slightly thinned rim. According to Morel, this series

includes cups produced in central Italy, especially by the Atelier des petites estampilles, in

the early 3rd century BC. Apart from Rome and Lazio, there are known examples in

Campania, from Capua37 and Naples,38 as well as Fratte and Pontecagnano.39 A local

production is assumed for both Capua and Pontecagnano.

The only Cumaean specimen with an entirely reconstructible profile (figs. 4 and 5,

no. 209) has an impressed decoration within seven or eight narrow rouletted bands on the

bottom, enclosing two meandering rows divided by one line and a meander in the middle.

A consistent percentage of the whole fragments related to cups consist of bottoms

with a ring foot with a stamped decoration (fig. 5, no. 241). These fragments are probably

attributable to cups with regularly curved bowls and oblique rims curved inwards (series

2586) and to hemispherical cups with slightly thinned rounded rims (species 2780).

The decorative patterns on these vessels are rather complex, although the

associations of stamps are quite repetitive. These consist of guillochures arranged in

several registers, which frame a variety of motifs, such as: meanders, palmettes and

meanders, palmettes and dotted festoons (arcs), and dotted ellipses associated with other

elements (palmettes, meandering, gorgoneia, rosettes, etc.). Furthermore, our study of the

stamps also shows that the punches used for the decoration of kylikes are not used for

cups, whereas some motifs, such as guillochures and meanders, are found also on some

one-handled and small concave-convex profile cups.

77

28 MOREL 1981, 188, pl. 58. The specimens date to 290 ± 20 BC. See also HOLWERDA 1936, 18, nos. 156 and

158 (Naples), pls. II and X (decoration of no. 156).29 Centre Jean Bérard excavations within the area of the Middle Gate necropolis. See also: VAN INGEN 1933, 57,

pl. XXXII, nos. 19, 21, 22 and 24 (shapes), with decorations on pl. XXXV, nos. 12 (shape no. 24) and 13 (shape no.

22), which combines ellipses, palmettes and guillochures; specimen no. 11 (shape no. 19) is without palmettes. These

vessels come from the Canonico de Criscio Collection.30 The specimen is displayed in the hall inside the Museo Metro station in Naples (window 1, no. 36). On the inner

bottom of the vase there is a decoration on several registers including guillochures and a dotted ellipses pattern.31 BENASSAI 2004, 182, tomb 8 (mid 4th century BC, or even earlier). The specimen shows a complex stamped

decoration: «in the middle of the body there is an unclear head, perhaps a Silenus, crowned by six radial palmettes,

surrounded by ten more small palms linked by a double festoon decorated with dots».32 MANzINI 2013, 202, fig. 3d and 207, note 19.33 DE FILIPPIS et alii 2013, 191-192, where the black-glaze shapes are assumed to come from workshops in Teano;

in particular, see grave-goods 59, 88, 70, 84 and 78 (?), figg. 8-10, 16-17 for the presence of series 2586 cups and

the association of materials.34 De Benedittis, in Samnium 1992, 173, d76 (4th-3rd century BC), tav. 14d.35 COOK et alii 1957, 225, pl. 287, 11a (shape) and b (decoration), unknown origin.36 MOREL 1981, 224.37 BENASSAI 2004, 183.38 The specimen from Naples (albeit with a degree of uncertainty) is in HOLWERDA 1936, 18, no. 157, pls. II and

X (decoration). Oddly, it was not taken into account by Morel in his 1981 volume.39 SERRITELLA 1995, 93 and note 39, 110 on the spread.

The decorative motifs described above have plenty of parallels in Campania, where,

however, the quality of the documentation does not always allow precise typological

attributions to the singles series. These Cumaean cups, already known from earlier

excavations,40 find close parallels in some examples from Capua41 and Naples.42 In the

Neapolitan inland, many examples are documented from the necropolis of Ponticelli,43

while other samples come from Qualiano44 and Vitulazio.45 A very similar example is also

documented in the Marica sanctuary at the mouth of the Garigliano River.46

In 1965 J.-P. Morel, in an article on black-glaze ware from Pompeii, focusing on a

bottom fragment showing an impressed decoration with a meander in the middle

surrounded by festoons of double dotted arcs, observed that these stamps, which are

countless in the Museum of Capua, constitute the elements of an extremely typical

decoration of Proto-Campanian pottery in Campania. Their rare but significant occurrence

on Campana A pottery indicates direct affiliation between the earliest shapes of this

pottery and the later shapes of Proto-Campanian one, from which Campana A apparently

borrowed some punches. This motif, on the Campana A, has to be dated no later than the

mid-3rd century BC.47

The small cups are less frequent, being fewer than 8% of the total. The most

represented series is 2971, where the shape is characterised by a ring foot, a shallow bowl

with an almost straight or slightly curved profile. A single example preserves on the inside

bottom an impressed decoration consisting of multiple rows of guillochures with four

palmettes in the middle (fig. 4, no. 51). Some miniaturistic examples may also be

attributed to the same series. Morel suggests that these are from a production of Central-

southern Italy and Sicily. One of those used to represent the series comes from Ischia.48

The type is documented in the San Prisco necropolis in Capua.49 Within this context some

other small cups attributable to species 2730, series 2714, are also attested.

Our study of black-glaze ware from the destruction levels of the sanctuary in the

second half of the 4th century BC, though still preliminary, has revealed, within a

production zone in Southern Italy, morphological and decorative characteristics typical of

inland Northern and coastal Campania.

From the morphological point of view, our study revealed a rather limited repertoire

of types. The available data show that some of the shapes have a wide areal distribution -

for example skyphoi, one-handler cups, and small cups-while others, such as kylikes and

40 BENASSAI 2004 reports two specimens from Cumae (202 and note 380), with the same shape but a dotted-ellipse

pattern combined with female or Silenus heads: MNA, inv. 128728 with female head; MNA, inv. 12893, with Silenus

head. According to Benassai, the clay looks Capuan. Moreover, see the specimens belonging to the Canonico de

Criscio Collection, probably coming from Cuma: VAN INGEN 1933, 57, pl. XXXII (shapes) and pls. XXXIII-

XXXV (decorations).41 Close parallels for decoration consisting of guillochures, ellipses, palmettes, and a central motif: BENASSAI

2004, 101-102, tomb 17 (territory of Ponte S. Prisco, N. De Angelis property, third quarter of the 4th century BC),

inv. 184054, MOREL 1981, F2784, figs. 38a, 41c. For decoration consisting of guillochures, ellipses, palmettes,

central motif: MINGAzzINI 1958, tav. 26, n. 2 (inv. 7690) and n. 8 (s.n.). 42 Cups without context showing an impressed decoration constituted by festoons and dotted palmettes are known in

Naples: ROCCO 1954, Cales type pottery, 6, tav. 6.2 (inv. 83602) and tav. 7.2 (inv. 83702), both without origin.43 On the Ponticelli necropolis, see GIGLIOLI 1922, XIX, 257-286, and GIAMPAOLA 1985 a, 302-312. The

Ponticelli necropolis revealed many cups (“bowls”) in which the ellipsis motif (“oval rings” or “double festoons”)

is combined with other elements (gorgoneia, palmettes, meanders, etc.): GIGLIOLI 1922, 260, various tombs, n. 8;

262, T. IV, n. 10; 263, T. VIII, n. 4; 266, T. XIII, nn. 4-6; 268, T. XXIII, nn. 2-5, fig. 11; 278, T. LXX, n. 12; 279, T.

LXXVII, n. 11; in general 286; GIAMPAOLA 1985 a, 306, T. 94 (about 340 BC), n. 88.6; 307, T. 2 (340-320 BC),

n. 90.1, tav. XLV.44 GIAMPAOLA 1985 b, 318, T. 14 (about 350 BC), no. 96.3, tav. XLVII.45 MINGAzzINI 1930, 549, n. 4, fig. 2A.46 MINGAzzINI 1938, 897, n. 23, tav. XXXIX, 1.47 MOREL 1965, 87, no. 23, fig. 4, 10. 48 MOREL 1981, 241.49 KEMP 1985, Crystallitic b-fabric (birefringent fabric) refers to the optically active portions of small crystals that

are different from clay minerals.

78

cups, circulated over a smaller geographical area.

Our autoptic analysis, combined with a typological study, revealed technical

characteristics (ceramic body, surface treatment, decoration, etc.) common to many

distinct groups of shapes. Indeed, from a technological point of view, there is a certain

resemblance between kylikes (species 4240, series 4253), skyphoi of series 4373 and

some small cups, which led us to incorporate them into a single group characterised by

higher quality, a clear (ocher) and more depurated ceramic body, thick coatings, reserved

bases covered by a thin reddish coating similar to miltos Attic vases, quite thin walls, and

a schematic use of impressed and repetitive motifs related to Attic models.

We also observed a certain technical homogeneity between series 2586 and 2784

cups, which appear to be generally coarser: darker (orange) ceramic body, thicker walls,

and a generally opaque coatings, marked by patches with a metallic luster, greyish tones,

uneven colouring, and reddish/orange zoning. The stacking disc on the inside bottom is

often very marked, with colour fading to red or brown. The impressed decorative

repertoire is homogeneous, the decorative syntax is quite complex, and the punches used

are completely different from those used for the previous group.

A third group, characterised by a darker ceramic body, thicker walls, and a poor

quality glaze, seems to be more more diversified. It includes species 2710 and series 2423

small cups, series 4382 skyphoi and some species 6210 and 6230 one-handler cups.

These initial observations, resulting from a cross-sectional study of morphological,

decorative, and technological data, allow us to assume the existence of several pottery

workshops, also including Cumaean ones. The data are accompanied by reflections on the

spatial distribution of these artifacts and on the frequency of their occurrence not only in

sanctuaries but also in necropoleis, and their contextual association. The non-discovery of

archaeological evidence (furnaces, wastes, etc.) documenting a local production of this

pottery class, however, is an obvious limit.50

To complete our research, we started an archaeometric study to define, from a

mineral-petrographic and chemical point of view, the black-glaze productions of the

second half of the 4th century BC documented in the abandonment layers of the northern

suburban sanctuary. The archaeometric investigation provided significant additional

insights, both for the identification of sites of origin and for the tracing of short and

medium-range commercial channels for the distribution of these wares (Campania).

3. Description of samples and methods of analysis

Thirteen samples (nine fragments of black-glaze ware and four fragments of coarse

ware) from the Northern suburban sanctuary of Cumae (Hellenistic age, second half of the

4th century BC; tab. 1) were studied in this investigation. The two ceramic classes were

found during the archaeological excavations and are representative of a large number of

types. The nine fragments of black-glaze ware belonged to a patera (CUMN 1), a kylix

(CUMN 2), small cups (CUMN 3 and 8), cups (CUMN 4 and 5), skyphoi (CUMN 6 and

7) and a one-handler cup (CUMN 9). The four coarse ware samples have a closed shape

(CUMN 18, 19, 20, and 22).

We conducted mineral-petrographic tests on all pottery fragments in order to define

their macroscopic, microscopic, and chemical features.

Macroscopic observation identified the colour of the ceramic pastes (using the

Munsell Soil Colour Chart) and the surface, thickness, and manufacture of ceramic bodies.

Optical microscopy was used to investigate petrographic features such as texture,

colour and matrix activity, and the mineralogy of the ceramic components.

79

50 KEMP 1985. Speckled b-fabric (birefringent fabric) refers to the optically active portions of small crystals that are

different from clay minerals.

Bulk chemical analyses were carried out by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) (Axios

Panalytical instrument) at the Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”. Analytical

uncertainties are in the order of 1-2% for major elements (SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3,

MnO, MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O and P2O5 in wt.%) and 5-10% for trace elements (Rb, Sr,

y, zr, Nb, Ba, Cr, Ni, Sc, V, La and Ce in ppm).

Microchemical analyses of the thin black slips covering black-glaze ware and of

mineral phases identified in pastes were conducted at the C.I.S.A.G. (Centro

Interdipartimentale Strumentazioni per Analisi Geomineralogiche), Università degli Studi

di Napoli Federico II, utilizing an Oxford Instruments Microanalysis Unit equipped with

an INCA X-act detector and a JEOL JSM-5310 microscope. An accelerating voltage of 15

kV and a filament current of 50–100 µA were used for all of the analyses. Measuring times

were 50 s. For calibration, both natural and synthetic standards were used.

Semi-quantitative X-ray powder diffraction analyses (XRPD) were carried out on

some representative ceramic samples with a PANalytical X’Pert PRO 3040/60 PW

diffractometer (CuKα radiation, 40 kV, 40 mA, scanning interval 4–50◦ 2θ, step size

0.017◦ 2θ, counting time 15.5 seconds/step), in order to identify the mineralogical

composition of the potsherds, which depends on the base-clay and possible

submicroscopic phases related to the firing dynamics (temperature, oxidizing or reducing

conditions of the kiln atmosphere).

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Macroscopic features

The ceramic pastes of black-glaze ware and coarse ware show a light brown colour;

a few samples belonging to both pottery classes show a darker colour (tab. 1). All samples

are characterised by a very fine and hard ceramic paste, with smooth surfaces.

The black-glaze ware is covered by a thin slip on the inside and outside. The CUMN

1, 3, and 5 samples have a metallic black slip, and the CUMN 4, 7, and 9 samples have

visibly damaged surfaces. The CUMN 2 and 8 samples have a shiny black slip. The

CUMN 6 sample has a shiny black slip and a red slip on its base.

4.2. Optical microscopy

The black-glaze wares have a light or deep brown matrix. Most of the samples

(CUMN 3, 4, 7 and 9) show the presence of crystallitic calcite, which makes the matrix

birefringent (crystallitic).51 Other samples have a birefringent matrix, including CUMN 2,

due to the high presence of fine mica crystals, CUMN 8, which includes speckled calcite,52

and CUMN 6 with striated calcite.53 Only the CUMN 1 and 5 samples have an isotropic

matrix. All samples have low or medium porosity, with an oriented microstructure due to

the presence of micas (white and brown). The voids are elongated and parallel to the

pottery surface. The inclusions in the skeleton are very fine, with a seriate distribution,

composed by minute crystals of quartz and micas (muscovite and subordinate biotite) (pl.

IV, 1).

The first group (CUMN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) shows an amount of grains of 5-15%,

while the second group (CUMN 7 and 9) has a higher amount (15-20%) of grains.

51 KEMP 1985. Striated b-fabric (birefringent fabric) refers to the optically active portions of small crystals that are

different from clay minerals.52 KEMP 1985. Speckled b-fabric (birefringent fabric) refers to the optically active portions of small crystals that are

different from clay minerals.53 MIRTI-DAVIT 2001.

6. Northern

suburban

sanctuary of

Cumae. The

analysed

samples.

80

The two groups contain smaller quantities of alkali feldspar, plagioclase, oxides,

and rare clinopyroxene. Volcanic fragments (with plagioclase and clinopyroxene) and

ARF (Argillaceous Rock Fragments) are rare. The thin black slip on these fragments is

optical birefringent with a variable thickness (10-22 micron).

The four studied fragments of coarse ware show slight differences in their inclusion

contents, lower than 10% for the CUMN 18 and 19 samples, lower than 20% for the

CUMN 20 sample, and lower than 15% in the CUMN 22 sample. They have a light

reddish or yellowish brown matrix, birefringent for the CUMN 18, 20, and 22 samples and

with speckled calcite54 for the CUMN 19 sample. The inclusions with a seriate distribution

are composed by minute crystals of quartz and micas (muscovite and subordinate biotite)

(pl. IV, 1). The other observed inclusions are alkali feldspar, plagioclase, clinopyroxene,

oxides, and volcanic fragments formed by plagioclase, biotite, and oxides. In the CUMN

20 sample grog and fossil fragments were also observed. The CUMN 20 and 22 samples

contain rare obsidian fragments.

4.3. Chemical Analyses

The black-glaze ware and coarse ware (tab. 2) have similar SiO2, Fe2O3, Na2O,

and K2O contents and slight differences in the chemical range of CaO (8.31-12.9 wt. %

in black-glaze ware and 8.32-12.3 wt. % in coarse ware) and Al2O3 (15.6-16.9 wt. % in

black-glaze ware and 16.4-17.3 wt. % in coarse ware).

In contrast, the chemical composition of the black slips (tab. 2) shows a strong

chemical difference from ceramic bodies of black-glaze ware. The slips of black-glaze

ware show higher Fe2O3 (12.8-16.1 wt. %), Al2O3 (28.0-30.6 wt. %) and lower SiO2

(44.6-47.7 wt. %) and CaO (0.73-1 wt. %) contents than the clay bodies (tab. 2). Their

Na2O contents are similar to those of black-glaze ware. Finally, the high content of K2O

(5.12-6.08 wt. %) with respect to the ceramic bodies (K2O 2.63-3.26 wt. %) is probably

due to the addition of wood ash to the mixture55 of slips. These slips could be the result of

extensive depuration of a clayey raw material.

The black-glaze ware and coarse ware show little variation in trace element

composition (tab. 2). The concentrations of Ba (313-535 ppm), Ni (53-73 ppm), zr (149-

253 ppm), and Sr (281-415 ppm) are similar in all ceramic bodies. Rb and Nb

concentrations are slightly lower in the black-glaze ware than in the coarse ware (Rb =

152-172 ppm vs. 171-194 ppm and Nb = 20-30 ppm vs. 29-35 ppm respectively).

Representative binary diagrams are shown in fig. 7, which highlights similarities

between black-glaze ware and coarse ware from the suburban sanctuary of Cumae, and the

chemical differences between the black-glaze ware and its black slip. These diagrams (fig.

7) compare black-glaze ware (1) (or BGW1) from the same age (Hellenistic age, 4th to 2nd

century BC) and pottery of the Archaic age (fine banded ware, Ionian cups, and some

black-glaze ware, 7th to 5th century BC) from the Forum of Cumae.56

Figure 7 shows the chemical similarity between the black-glaze ware from the

suburban sanctuary and that from the Forum of Cumae. It shows that there are some slight

differences in oxide content between the Archaic pottery and the black-glaze production

(figs. 7, a-b), and higher differences in trace element contents (figs. 7, c-d).

4.4. Mineralogical Analysis

- XRPD

54 KEMP 1985. Speckled b-fabric (birefringent fabric) refers to the optically active portions of small crystals that

are different from clay minerals.55 MIRTI-DAVIT 2001.56 See the contribution by G. Greco, A. Tomeo, B. Ferrara,V. Guarino et alii in this volume.

82

Semi-quantitative mineralogical compositions of six representative ceramic

fragments (CUMN 1, 4, 6, 7, 20, and 22) were carried out using X-ray powder diffraction

(XRPD).

Quartz is abundant and occurs in all samples. Feldspar is scarce (except for coarse

ware sample CUMN 22, where it is frequent). Sporadic calcite is found in CUMN 4 and

7. This phase was detected only in traces in samples CUMN 6, 7, and 22, whereas it is

absent in CUMN 1. Pyroxene is sporadic (CUMN 1, 6, and 22) or in traces (CUMN 4, and

7), whereas it is absent in sample CUMN 20. Newly formed melilite (e.g., gehlenite) has

been detected in scarce amounts (CUMN 1, 4, and 6) or as traces (CUMN 7, and 22).

Traces of hematite are detectable in five samples (CUMN 1, 4, 6, 7, and 22). Minerals of

the illite/muscovite group were detected as traces (CUMN 1, 4, 6, and 7) or in small

amounts (CUMN 20, and 22). The presence of newly formed calcium silicates as

pyroxene and gehlenite in samples CUMN 1, 4, 6, and 7 suggest a firing temperature

higher than 850 °C. In these samples the remaining traces of illite/muscovite indicate an

upper limit of approximately 950 °C. Furthermore, the CUMN 22 sample contains these

minerals, but in this case the higher amount of illite/muscovite and the presence of only

mere traces of gehlenite suggest a lower temperature range (800-900 °C). The sample

CUMN 20 could have experienced firing temperatures not higher than 850 °C, due to the

presence of illite/muscovite and the absence of newly formed calcium silicates.

7. Representative

binary diagrams

of major elements

(wt. %) and trace

elements (ppm)

for the analysed

ceramic classes

and the chemical

composition of

black slips. The

compositional

field of BGW 1

(black-glaze ware

1) and the

Archaic pottery of

the Forum is also

reported.

83

- EDS

The minerals in black-glaze ware (CUMN 1, 4, and 6) are composed of quartz,

alkali feldspar (sanidine), micas (muscovite and phlogopite), rare plagioclase (oligoclase),

apatite, and zircon.

The mineral phases analysed in coarse ware (CUMN 20, and 22) are quartz, alkali

feldspar (sanidine to anorthoclase), rare plagioclase (andesine to oligoclase),

clinopyroxene (diopside), micas (muscovite and phlogopite), apatite, monazite, rutile,

zircon; obsidian of trachytic compositions is also observed. Newly formed phase is

melilite (as gehlenite and ferri-gehlenite). Minute crystals of garnet (andradite = 93-94

mol%)57 are analysed in sample CUMN 22. The secondary phase analysed in the black-

glaze ware and tableware is calcite.

57 LOCOCK 2008.

84

5. Conclusions

Our archaeometric study of the two ceramic classes (black-glaze ware and coarse

ware) from the Northern suburban sanctuary of Cumae (second half of the 4th century BC)

has highlighted comparable macro- and microscopic features and mineralogical and

chemical compositions.

All the analysed samples from the suburban sanctuary show similar petrographic

features to BGW 1 from the Forum58 of Cumae, all characterised by a predominance of

quartz, followed by micas (muscovite and biotite), alkali feldspar, plagioclase, rare

clinopyroxene, and volcanic fragments. Moreover, the studied samples and the BGW 1

sample from the Forum59 have similar chemical compositions, so we can hypothesize that

the same raw material was used. Their chemical composition is similar to that of Ischia

clays,60 whose use is also hypothesized for more recent pottery from the same area

(Byzantine tableware, 6th to 8th century AD).61

The trachytic composition of volcanic glasses (obsidians) in the paste of the coarse

ware suggests that they may be of Phlegraean origin.62 The lack of pottery production

indicators (e.g., kilns, wastes, misfired fragments), does not allow us to ascertain whether

Cumae was a production site. However, the two ceramics classes show a certain

compositional homogeneity connected to the Bay of Naples.

Finally, the archaeological investigation of pottery from the sanctuary of Cumae,

along with the widespread distribution of similar objects, suggests the existence of several

pottery workshops at Neapolis, Ischia, Cuma, and the surrounding area.

85

58 See the contribution by G. Greco, A. Tomeo, B. Ferrara,V. Guarino et alii in this volume.59 See the contribution by G. Greco, A. Tomeo, B. Ferrara,V. Guarino et alii in this volume.60 DE BONIS 2013.61 GRIFA et alii 2009.62 MORRA 2013.

Tab. 1.

Macroscopical

features of black-

glaze ware and

coarse ware of

the Northen

suburban

sanctuary of

Cumae.

Tab. 2.

Representative

values for black-

glaze ware and

its black slip, and

for tableware of the

Northen suburban

sanctuary of

Cumae.

86

BATs et alii 2010

M. Bats - J. P. Brun - P. Munzi, Ai margini della

colonia greca di Cuma, in Cuma, Atti del XLVIII

Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto

2008, Taranto 2010, 525-552.

BenAssAi 2004

R. Benassai, S. Prisco. La necropoli capuana di IV

e III sec. a.C., in Carta archeologica e ricerche in

Campania, 2: comuni di Brezza, Capua, San

Prisco, L. Quilici, S. Quilici Gigli (eds.), Roma

2004, 73-229.

BRun-Munzi 2011

J. P. Brun - P. Munzi, Les travaux du Centre Jean

Bérard au nord de l’enceinte urbaine et au sud de

l’acropole, in RA, 51, 2011, 150-172.

BRun et alii forthcoming

J. P. Brun - P. Munzi - M. Leguilloux - L. Cavassa,

Banquets rituels à Cumes au IVe siècle avant J.-C.,

in Contacts et acculturations en Méditerranée

Occidentale. Hommages à Michel Bats, Actes du

Colloque International, Hyères-les-Palmiers 2011,

forthcoming.

COOK et alii 1957

J. M. Cook - N. Breitenstein - K. F. Johansen, CVA,

Denmark, Copenhagen, National Museum, 7,

Copenhagen 1957.

DE BENEDITTIS 1992

De BOnis 2013

A. De Bonis - C. Grifa - G. Cultrone - P. De Vita -

A. Langella - V. Morra, Raw Materials for

Archaeological Pottery from the Campania Region

of Italy: A Petrophysical Characterization, in

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28,

2013, 478-503.

De Filippis 1996

A. De Filippis, Gli scavi cumani di Emilio Stevens

e la Collezione Stevens, in I Greci in Occidente, La

Magna Grecia nelle collezioni del Museo

Archeologico di Napoli, Napoli 1996, 233-240.

De Filippis et alii 2013

A. De Filippis - A. Mazzocchi - M. G. Ruggi

D’Aragona, Nota preliminare sulla necropoli in

località Piscinola a Lauro di Sessa Aurunca (CE),

in OLCESE 2013, 189-200.

DewAilly-Munzi 2011

M. Dewailly - P. Munzi, Cuma, un acroterio a disco

con maschera di Gorgo. Dal ritrovamento

all’ipotetica collocazione, Deliciae fictiles IV,

Architectural Terracottas in Ancient Italy. Images

of Gods, Monsters and Heroes, P. Lulof, C.

Rescigno (eds.), Oxford 2011, 322-330.

GABRiCi 1913

E. Gabrici, Cuma, in MonAnt, 22, 1913.

GiAMpAOlA 1985 a

D. Giampaola, Ponticelli, in Napoli Antica 1985,

302-312.

GiAMpAOlA 1985 b

D. Giampaola, Qualiano, in Napoli Antica 1985,

317-321.

GiGliOli 1922

G. Q. Giglioli, Ponticelli (Napoli) - Necropoli del

III secolo av. Cr. in località Purgatorio, in NSc, 19,

1922, 257-286.

GRiFA et alii 2009

C. Grifa - V. Morra - A. Langella - P. Munzi,

Byzantine Ceramic Productions from Cuma (Campi

Flegrei, Napoli), in Archaeometry, 51, 2009, 75-94.

HOlweRDA 1936

J. H. Holwerda, Hetlaat-grieksche en romeinschegebruik-

saardewerkuithetmiddel-landsche-zee-gebied in het

Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, La Haye 1936.

KeMp 1985

R. A. Kemp, Soil Micromorphology and the

Quaternary, Quaternary Research Association

Technical Guide, 2, Cambridge 1985.

lAMBOGliA 1952 a

N. Lamboglia, Apuntes sobre cronología cerámica,

in Publicaciones del Seminario de Arqueología y

Numismática Aragonesas, 3, 1952, 73-90.

lAMBOGliA 1952 b

N. Lamboglia, Per una classificazione preliminare

della ceramica campana, in Atti del I Congresso

Internazionale di Studi Liguri, Monaco-Bordighera-

Genova 1950, Bordighera 1952, 139-206.

lAMBOGliA 1960

N. Lamboglia, Polemiche campane, in RStLig, 26,

1960, 292-304.

lisTA 1990

M. Lista, Contributo alla conoscenza della

ceramica a vernice nera di età preromana nell’area

Alifana, in Il territorio alifano: archeologia, arte,

storia, in L. Di Cosmo, A. M. Villucci (eds.), Atti del

Convegno, S. Angelo d’Alife 1987, Minturno1990,

75-90.

Bibliography

87

lOCOCK 2008

A. J. Locock, An Excel Spreadsheet to Recast

Analyses of Garnet into End-Member Components,

and a Synopsis of the Crystal Chemistry of Natural

Silicate Garnets, in Computers and Geosciences

34, 2008, 1769-1780.

MAnzini 2013

I. Manzini, La ceramica a vernice nera di Teano:

nuovi dati sulle caratteristiche della produzione

locale, in OLCESE 2013, 201-208.

MinGAzzini 1930

P. Mingazzini, Vitulazio (Fraz. di Villa Volturno in

Provincia di Napoli) - Tomba del IV secolo av. Cr.

e via antica, in NSc, 6, 1930, 549-552.

MinGAzzini 1938

P. Mingazzini, Il santuario della dea Marica alle

foci del Garigliano, in MonAnt, 37, 1938, 693-957.

MinGAzzini 1958

P. Mingazzini, CVA Capua, Museo Campano, 3,

Roma 1958.

MinieRO et alii 1997

P. Miniero - A. D’Ambrosio - G. Bonifacio - V. Di

Giovanni - G. Gasperetti - R. Cantilena, Il santuario

campano in località Privati presso Castellammare

di Stabia. Osservazioni preliminari, in RStPomp, 8,

1997, 11-56.

MiRTi-DAviT 2001

J. Mirti - M. Davit, Technological Characterization

of Campanian Pottery of Type A, B, C and of

Regional Products from Ancient Calabria (Southern

Italy), in Archaeometry, 43, 2001, 19-33.

MORel 1965

J. P. Morel, La céramique à vernis noir de Pompéi,

in ReiCretActa, 7, 1965, 81-103.

MORel 1981

J. P. Morel, Céramique campanienne. Les formes,

Rome 1981.

MORel 1994

J. P. Morel, Céramique campanienne. Les formes,

2nd ed., Rome 1994.

MORRA 2013

V. Morra - A. De Bonis - C. Grifa - A. Langella -L.

Cavassa - R. Piovesan, Minero-petrographic Study

of Cooking Ware and Pompeian Red Ware (Rosso

Pompeiano) from Cuma (Southern Italy), Archaeometry

55, 2013, 852-879.

Napoli antica 1985

Napoli antica, Catalogo della Mostra, Napoli 1985.

OlCese 2013

Immensa Aequora, G. Olcese (ed.), Atti del

Workshop, Roma 2013.

ROCCO 1954

A. Rocco, CVA Napoli, Museo Nazionale, 3, Roma

1954.

Samnium 1992

Samnium. Archeologia del Molise, S. Capini, A. Di

Niro (edd.), Roma 1992.

seRRiTellA 1995

A. Serritella, Pontecagnano II, 3. Le nuove aree di

una necropoli del IV e III secolo a.C., Napoli 1995.

seRRiTellA 2013

A. Serritella, Un nucleo di tombe di armati tra IV e

III sec. a.C. a Pontecagnano, Paestum 2013.

TOMeO 2008

A. Tomeo, Doni votivi e suppellettili nel complesso

cultuale a S/E del Foro di Cuma, in Doni agli dei.

Il sistema dei doni votivi nei santuari, in G. Greco,

B. Ferrara (eds.), Atti del Seminario, Napoli 2006,

Pozzuoli 2008, 49-74.

vAn inGen 1933

W. van Ingen, CVA University of Michigan at

AnnArbor, 1, Cambridge Mass. 1933.

zevi et alii 2008

Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei. Catalogo

generale. 1. Cuma, F. zevi, F. Demma, E. Nuzzo,

C. Rescigno, C. Valeri (eds.), Napoli, 2008.

image sources

CJB, USR 3133 CNRS-EFR: figs. 1-3, 5.

V. Guarino: fig. 7.

G. Stelo: figs. 4, 6.